So did England really had a chance anyway?

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Craig

Well I suppose yes then. But Australia has played well because England allowed them to.

we seem to be going around in circles on this one.... for me, you don't go up 4-0 unless you are significantly better and not just because your opponents loosened their grip on you....

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by Anil

england are decidedly the inferior team and would've lost anyway(in fact i disagree with people who say that the series would've been different had it been played in england), had the selections been done better, england might have put up a better fight, they would still have lost the ashes comprehensively...it's not that they are a bad team, the aussies are just that good, simple as that....

England man for man weren't Australia's equals, that's true. But they weren't necssarily last time either, and they managed to beat us. I do think they'd have fared better at home (though I wouldn't have expected them to win), and some of what affected their performances was their poor preparation (and obviously their away "selection group") for the tour. But mainly, I think the English - and particularly their bowlers - were just substantially below their best. And Australia were a lot closer to theirs.

Anyhow, in answer to the poll question, no.

[BoyBrumby]

I've been disappointed not so much for the defeat, which I realistically expected anyway, but for the lack of a real contest. We've been involved in some exciting series over the past couple of years, regardless of results, and this has been a non-starter. Obviously one must give massive respect to Australia for the quality of the cricket they've played and for the way they've turned potentially difficult situations into winning ones (Adelaide is the obvious one, but they could've been in trouble after the first innings at Perth too), but we've really shrank from the challenge.

[GIMH]

Obviously I was expecting to walk it, tbh I thought there was an outside chance of us sneaking 6-0 and winning some games without even batting. Nonetheless, having viewed fair chunks of the first three Tests, and bits of this fourth one, it's clear that the Ashes have been lost because Australia are an above average side.

Having said that, I do believe that it needn't have been 4-0; whatever decisions we made incorrectly, the Ashes would still be lost, and had we played a lot better, Aus would still have beaten us, but we could have taken a lot more pride out of this series than we have done.

We have failed to put together three out of four good innings in any Test, but I don't want to take anying away from Australia, because they have been magnificent.

[Jono]

Its easy to say no when the scoreline says 4-0 in Australia's favour...

so I'll say no.

[marc71178]

With hindsight, I'd say no, however they really shouldn't have got to the stage of being 4-0 down.

At least this is the first game they didn't take to day 5, unlike previous times...

[FaaipDeOiad]

To be honest, I think there's very, very few teams in the history of test cricket that could have beaten Australia at home the way they've played over four tests so far. There's not a single player that hasn't had a significant impact on the series, excluding perhaps Damien Martyn, who Symonds replaced with success. So no, I don't think England had a realistic chance with Australia playing at their best, especially without Simon Jones.

They certainly had the chance to go a lot closer than they have though.

[PhoenixFire]

We did have a chance, and we could have won it, but a combination of poor selections, poor shot selection, Anderson and Giles, and Australia playing well, meant we didn't.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Slow Love™

England man for man weren't Australia's equals, that's true. But they weren't necssarily last time either, and they managed to beat us. I do think they'd have fared better at home (though I wouldn't have expected them to win), and some of what affected their performances was their poor preparation (and obviously their away "selection group") for the tour. But mainly, I think the English - and particularly their bowlers - were just substantially below their best. And Australia were a lot closer to theirs.

Anyhow, in answer to the poll question, no.

that is kind of my point and the answer to the question in this thread...any series between these two countries wherever it is held right now would have only one result, an aussie win...and in the last series, mcgrath was injured for a significant portion of it, the other bowlers except for warne(especially gillespie) were out of form, the batting didn't really click and in addition, flintoff and england played out of their skins....and what was the result, a 2-1 win for england, a series that was open till the last day of the last test if i remember correctly? kind of the reverse holding true here, the result is an overwhelming victory for australia, that itself tells you about the relative strengths of the two teams, doesn't it?

[Matteh]

Think it also shows the different personalities of the teams. Australia no matter what situation they're in always look for the win and because of that usually come close or do succeed. Englands outlook varies and often sits in pure survival mode which is a negative outlook and usually sees them fold.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Think it also shows the different personalities of the teams. Australia no matter what situation they're in always look for the win and because of that usually come close or do succeed. Englands outlook varies and often sits in pure survival mode which is a negative outlook and usually sees them fold.

yes true...that aussie personality is their biggest strength and usually gets them through in difficult situations and makes them absolutely dominant when they are in form...

[Sanz]

Anyone who thought that England had any chance of retaining the ashes was over estimating this english side. England barely won the last Ashes with Mcgrath out for good part of it and most Aussie batsmen out of form. During the last tour Australia made a major mistake by not picking Hussey over Katich.

Some of us had told months ago that England are not going to win/retain the Ashes no matter who goes and who doesn't.

[Stumped]

of course they had a chance a combination of poor captaincy and players not performing hurt the english badly

[Stumped]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Anyone who thought that England had any chance of retaining the ashes was over estimating this english side. England barely won the last Ashes with Mcgrath out for good part of it and most Aussie batsmen out of form. During the last tour Australia made a major mistake by not picking Hussey over Katich.

Some of us had told months ago that England are not going to win/retain the Ashes no matter who goes and who doesn't.

it was never a 100% chance that australia would retain the ashes, australia had more passion and more motivation to win the ashes back

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Stumped

it was never a 100% chance that australia would retain the ashes, australia had more passion and more motivation to win the ashes back

And more talent. That always helps.